Size effects in visual recognition memory are determined by perceived size

Recognition memory for shapes has been shown to depend on differences between the size of shapes at the time of encoding and at the time of the memory test (Jolicoeur, 1987). Experiment 1 of the present paper replicates this effect and establishes a set of parameters used in the subsequent experiments. Experiment 2 considers the results of Experiment 1 in light of the distinction between “perceived” size, which, under normal viewing conditions, varies minimally with changes in distance between the observer and object, and “retinal” size, which varies proportionally with viewing distance as an object is moved closer to or farther from an observer. Subjects studied novel shapes and performed a recognition memory test in which the distance from the subject to the viewing screen at the time of testing was different from that at the time of encoding. The viewing distance and the size of the shapes were manipulated such that perceived and retinal sizes were dissociated. The results suggest that the size-congruency effect in memory for visual shape occurs as a result of changes in the perceived size of shapes between the encoding and the testing phases, with little or no contribution of retinal size perse.

[1]  William Epstein,et al.  Does retinal size have a unique correlate in perceived size? , 1969 .

[2]  M Mayman.  Reflections on psychoanalytic research. , 1973, Psychological issues.

[3]  W. H. Ittelson,et al.  The size-distance invariance hypothesis. , 1953, Psychological review.

[4]  The high cost of reward in task productivity , 1970 .

[5]  M I Posner,et al.  Chronometric analysis of classification. , 1967, Psychological review.

[6]  A. Larsen,et al.  Pattern matching: Effects of size ratio, angular difference in orientation, and familiarity , 1985, Perception & psychophysics.

[7]  Walter C. Gogel,et al.  Familiar size and the theory of off-sized perceptions , 1987, Perception & psychophysics.

[8]  H WALLACH,et al.  On size-perception in the absence of cues for distance. , 1960, The American journal of psychology.

[9]  W. Lichten,et al.  A new technique for the study of perceived size. , 1950, The American journal of psychology.

[10]  I. Rock.  The perception of disoriented figures. , 1974, Scientific American.

[11]  S. Kosslyn.  Image and mind , 1982 .

[12]  I. Rock,et al.  The effect of retinal and phenomenal orientation on the perception of form. , 1957, The American journal of psychology.

[13]  Y. Takano.  Perception of rotated forms: A theory of information types , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  P. Jolicoeur,et al.  Identification of disoriented objects: effects of context of prior presentation. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[15]  W. Epstein,et al.  The current status of the size-distance hypotheses. , 1961, Psychological bulletin.

[16]  P. Jolicoeur.  A size-congruency effect in memory for visual shape , 1987, Memory & cognition.

[17]  M. Coltheart,et al.  Mental size scaling examined , 1976, Memory & cognition.

[18]  P. A. Kolers,et al.  Procedures of mind. , 1984 .

[19]  P. Jolicoeur,et al.  The spatial frame of reference in object naming and discrimination of left-right reflections , 1990, Memory & cognition.

[20]  Walter C. Gogel,et al.  The validity of the size-distance invariance hypothesis with cue reduction , 1971 .

[21]  R. Sekuler,et al.  Speed of size scaling in human vision , 1972 .

[22]  W. Gogel,et al.  EQUIDISTANCE TENDENCY AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. , 1965, Psychological bulletin.

[23]  Pierre Jolicoeur,et al.  Identification of Disoriented Objects: A Dual‐systems Theory , 1990 .

[24]  P. Jolicoeur.  Mental rotation and the identification of disoriented objects. , 1988, Canadian journal of psychology.

[25]  C. Bundesen,et al.  Size scaling in visual pattern recognition. , 1978, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[26]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Similarity information versus relational information: Differences in the time course of retrieval , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[27]  D. Besner.  Visual Pattern Recognition: Size Preprocessing Re-Examined , 1983, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[28]  Pierre Jolicoeur,et al.  "Mental rotation and the identification of disoriented objects": Erratum. , 1989 .

[29]  M. Tarr,et al.  Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[30]  I. Rock.  The orientation of forms on the retina and in the environment. , 1956, The American journal of psychology.

[31]  I. Rock,et al.  The effect on form perception of change of orientation in the third dimension. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[32]  Peter P. Tanner,et al.  Antialiasing: A technique for smoothing jagged lines on a computer graphics image—an implementation on the Amiga , 1989 .

[33]  Irvin Rock,et al.  Orientation and form , 1974 .

[34]  William Epstein,et al.  Size and distance judgments under reduced conditions of viewing , 1969 .

[35]  P Jolicoeur,et al.  Additivity and interaction between size ratio and response category in the comparison of size-discrepant shapes. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[36]  L. Brosgole,et al.  The role of perceived distance in determining apparent visual size , 1985 .

[37]  P. Jolicoeur.  The time to name disoriented natural objects , 1985, Memory & cognition.

[38]  D. Marr,et al.  Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes , 1978, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[39]  P. A. Kolers,et al.  Size in the visual processing of faces and words. , 1985 .

[40]  C. Bundesen,et al.  Visual transformation of size. , 1975, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[41]  Equidistance effects in visual fields. , 1969, The American journal of psychology.

[42]  E Goldmeier,et al.  Similarity in visually perceived forms. , 1972, Psychological issues.

[43]  Alfred H. Holway,et al.  Determinants of Apparent Visual Size with Distance Variant , 1941 .

[44]  W C Gogel,et al.  The sensing of retinal size. , 1969, Vision research.

[45]  Walter C. Gogel,et al.  A two-process theory of the response to size and distance , 1987, Perception & Psychophysics.